Analyzing Paul Armstrong’s: The Conflict Of Interpretation And The Limits Of Pluralism

Introduction

In this paper by Paul B Armstrong there is a constant debate between monism and pluralism about the validity in interpretation of the contents of a text. He has explained various techniques of interpretations which are used by the readers to decipher the subject matter. In the beginning of this paper he explains different views that people have on interpretation. According to relativists every work has innumerable interpretations and all such representations are necessarily misrepresentations, but monists put preference to the author’s intention, norms in the work itself or the plain old common sense. By understanding the above mentioned views it can be said that the interpretation depends upon the criteria for validity which is responsible for the legitimacy of the text or reading.

[Image Sources : Shutterstock]

Further, the author goes on to say that the first premise of hermeneutics is that interpretation is circular. To understand the whole text, the interpreters must look at the parts of the text and rely on them to make sense of the whole text. According to the author to understand the text certain amount of guesswork is definitely required as without the methods of trial and error and presumption it will be hard to arrive at an understanding of the text because the rules and theories of interpretation does not always guarantee a proper understanding of a text.

The author then goes on to present instances of different authors’ conceptions of interpretation. Some scholars argue that presupposition plays a crucial part in the interpretation of a text, and that it is difficult to create an understanding of the text without presupposition in some form or another. Other scholars believe that presumption restricts how a text may be read, and that it is thus preferable to keep an open mind while understanding a text. This type of interpretation is recommended because it is only when a person engages with a text without making any presumptions about it beforehand that he or she is able to understand the text in new and unique ways rather than adhering to any preconceived style of interpretation. Also, because people’s perceptions and knowledge of a text varies, it should be left up to the readers to interpret a text in the way that is most helpful to them in comprehending the text.[1]

The author also tries to explain that through various examples which show that multiple interpretations of the same text can be said to be valid and also considered and this can be said so because multiple interpretations help in understanding the works in different ways. Interpreters may not always be disadvantaged by multiple interpretations. While interpreting a text, many approaches of interpretation may frequently overlap; yet, this may serve to indicate that plurality does not always imply conflict in interpretation. Instead, it might imply that plurality aids in the unification of many ways of comprehending a text.

In the second part of the paper the author mentions different tests which he uses to judge the validity of a reading.

First test is the test of Inclusiveness which is used to judge the scope and depth of the reading. In short the author is trying to say that the more inclusive a reading is, the more valid the interpretation is, and narrower interpretation is definitely wrong. But according to me this test is not a completely valid test because this involves going back and forth between interpreting the part and interpreting the whole and hence if the parts don’t align with the whole part then both of them will be considered to be anomalies. And therefore to avoid this anomaly it is suggested that each part should be interpreted separately and not as a whole. In this way the each part of the reading can be interpreted differently and then a relation can be drawn out between these parts to get a combined interpretation.

Second test is the test of Inter- subjectivity, which state that interpretation is an act of belief and the more number of people assent to it the more credible it becomes. The major drawback of this test is that it depends upon communal agreement and if an interpretation is not accepted by a majority of people even though it being correct may make such interpretation invalid and unsharable.

And the third test is the test of Efficacy which is mainly the pragmatic view of the above mentioned two tests. This test leads to analysis of the text in such a way that it leads to new discoveries and continued comprehension.

We can see near the conclusion of the essay that the author has moved on to what other authors have said about other sorts of interpretation. The author does not favour or oppose any one style of interpretation, but rather investigates the numerous approaches of interpretation that have been debated by various authors. Despite the fact that the author is attempting to express that plurality is vital in the interpretation of legislation, the author is unable to present many techniques of interpretation that genuinely ensure the correct reading of a document. All the author succeeds in doing is confusing the reader as to which mode of interpretation to adopt. Instead of this, even though the reading talks about pluralism in interpretation, the author could have put forth a few methods of interpretation to rely upon in case the interpreter or reader of the text is not able to interpret the text at all.

Conclusion

While reaching towards the end, it is understood that in this paper, the author discusses and, to some extent, critiques the interpreters’ notions of beliefs while interpreting various texts. The author goes on to say that regardless of how an interpreter interprets a text, belief plays a crucial part, and it is this believe that ultimately determines how an interpreter reads a text. It might be argued that the author does not need to condemn how a person chooses to read a book based on his or her views, because beliefs eventually play a role in how a person chooses to understand a text. An interpreter must be allowed to hold any opinions about any text or technique of interpretation, as holding diverse ideas leads to experimenting with different methods of interpretation rather than sticking to one. As a result, differing views may not necessarily result in conflicting interpretations.

Author: Rishab Pillai, A Student at Dharmashastra National law University, Jabalpur, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or IP & Legal Filing.

[1] PAUL ARMSTRONG: THE CONFLICT OF INTERPRETATION AND THE LIMITS OF PLULARISM, Jstor, https://www.jstor.org/stable/462275?seq=1